08-17-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commission finds ten criteria, of which the applicant complies with nine criteria, it is a matter of law that the permit cannot be granted. Perhaps the language should be reworked. For instance, the language should be changed to take out “protect” and replace it with “Encourage the protection of existing...” Baker stated that, if New Brighton does not have spot zoning, and a site is zoned appropriately for the neighborhood, that is all that is necessary. Zisla said that, although the Commission is going over some changes, the overall Plan is well done. Zisla referred to page 5.13, #8. Take out “require” and replace it with “encourage developers to comply with...” Zisla referred to #10 and suggested “require” be replaced with “encourage.” Baker referred to references to environmental laws. Zisla asked why employers are asked to do certain things. Scheib stated the policy was included in response to air and noise quality concerns. The MPCA regulates these items. Zisla stated it is not that simple. Zisla stated he knew of a case in another city, concerning a land use decision, where there is a question of who enforces the environmental standards. That city’s position is that is the job of the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). This one will need some work. Zisla said he did not think the City wanted to get specific at all. Scheib stated that the Planning Commission must decide whether to revise these points or scrap them from the plan. Delaune stated the Planning Commission must understand where the Task Force was coming from when the plan was formulated. Then, the Commission can make specific modifications. Teague stated that he did not think the City wanted to get into the position of enforcing MPCA regulations. Statements #8 and #10 could be changed to “Encourage developments to comply with environmental performance standards.” For instance, the approval process typically involves Rice Creek Watershed District review. “Requiring a high level of aesthetic quality and design”could be changed to “require that all developments meet the City’s performance standards.” Scheib stated he felt it was simply a policy statement. Scheib stated the Commission’s clarifications make good sense. Baker asked for comments from the audience. D. L. Beach, the owner of Long Lake Service, stated his property was being considered for spot zoning. Beach referred to page 5.12 where the statement is made regarding disallowing spot zoning. Beach stated this item puzzled him because the Task Force adopted this Comprehensive Plan. Beach stated that his business has the overwhelming support from the neighborhood to have his property rezoned to a business zoning. If the Plan is adopted, the process for changing the zoning is thrown to the winds. The Commission is not considering the neighborhood. Beach said his business was a part of the neighborhood. The continued existence of the business requires a zoning change. The neighbor’s wishes should be taken into consideration. Ken Holberg, resident on Erin Court, stated that he attended the planning event on April 22. The community gave their input on the Plan. What was done with this input? Was any of the input incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan? The input regarding parks was extensive. Scheib responded the urban design principles were discussed at the planning event. Comments from the planning event were applied to the design principles. From these comments, the Silver Lake Road area as well as City Center was defined as the “Main Street area.” Schopf asked about Map 5.7. All the railroad right-of-ways have been removed. Was that intentional? Scheib stated that it was intentional. The Plan says that by 2020 those right-of-ways will not be used. Schopf said he thought there was a 30-year contract for the coal trains to use the right-of-way. Teague stated the Plan I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\08-17-99.WPD 6